Last week’s poll: improving plastics recycling

A small proportion of waste plastic food packaging is recyclable, prompting the Local Government Association to challenge manufacturers to rectify the situation.

LGA says that 525,000 tonnes of plastic pots, tubs and trays are used by households a year, but just 169,145 tonnes of this waste is recyclable. Consequently, LGA is calling for manufacturers to work with councils to develop a plan to stop unrecyclable food packaging from entering the environment.

Problematic packaging comes in many forms, including those plastics made from complex mixtures of polymers, and black plastic ready meal trays that cannot be identified by the optical scanners used in sorting.

Local authorities require households to sort their recycling into a variety of containers prior to refuse collection, leading us to canvas your opinions on the most effective measure to improve the proportion of recyclable plastic reaching supermarket shelves.

Of the 542 respondents, 36 per cent thought that manufacturers should be penalised for producing non-recyclable packaging. Just over a quarter (27 per cent) agreed that better processes should be in place for recycling more plastics, and 17 per cent believe that plastics manufacturers should be incentivised to improve recyclability. Of the remaining fifth of the vote, 13 per cent believe the use of recyclable packing should be incentivised, and seven per cent opted for ‘none of the above’.

The poll has so far accrued 37 comments, with Clive Davis summing a lack of joined-up thinking by saying: “One of the great problems with recycling in this country is knowing what can be recycled. There seems to be an unwritten rule that no two recycling schemes can be the same.”

Clive takes things further by proposing the following solution: “What is needed is a phone app that tells you. The phone would read the bar code and because it knew where it was, the phone could tell you what to do. The database behind it would be a lot of work but it would reveal a lot of useful information.”

For Ian, the solution lies in the statute books. He said: “It has to be legislation. No plastic to be used for packaging of any kind unless it can be recycled and the manufacturer / importer has a recycling scheme in place to recover the material. Extending the current packaging recovery scheme to cover the latter part would be an achievable goal, I believe the former is possible as it meets or exceeds waste legislation.”

For Steve, a potential solution can be found in incineration as there is “no land fill, no sorting, no on-cost for the recycled plastics,” he said. “We get energy for generating electricity or for district heating schemes. Properly designed, no risk to the environment. Exporting the waste is not a defendable solution, but incineration is.”

We, the UK, need to develop better processes for recycling plastics. It seems to be a typical government approach to preach about something and then in reality do nothing., sending our ‘rubbish’ overseas is indefensible we need to address our own problems with our own solutions. I believe this is a real opportunity for the UK to develop technology and lead the world in recycling rather than be a leading polluter. No country should be permitted to export it’s waste.

One of the great problems with recycling in this country is knowing what can be recycled. There seems to be an unwrittten rule that no two recycling schemes can be the same. What is needed is a phone app that tells you. The phone would read the bar code and because it knew where it was, the phone could tell you what to do. The database behind it would be a lot of work but it would reveal a lot of useful information.

The biggest problem is the use of plastic packaging in the first place. Firstly the government should be incentivizing manufacturers to use non plastic / easily degradable materials in place of non recyclable / non degradable material. Secondly there should be support for developing an integrated solution to recycling from material type to processes through to the most important which is re-using the recycled materials. There just doesn’t seem to be a joined up thinking approach from the government. You cant blame the individual manufacturing organizations without the right infrastructure in place to deal with it. In competitive markets the cheapest option is always taken and unfortunately that is more often than not to use virgin and non recyclable material. I guess the consumer could vote with their feet but in reality only a small percentage will.

Leave Europe behind us and just ban the sale of products in non-recyclable plastics for packaging in the UK. It is time to force people (companies) to think of the real costs and not just how can we be cheaper and still make more profit?
I never thought I could sound so “Green”

Sounds like Clive has just talked himself into a job!
One glaring thing that I have heard a lot over the last few weeks and months, and re-iterated in your piece, is that the optical scanners cannot detect black plastic. WHY NOT!!! Surely it is not beyond the wit on an optical engineer somewhere to a) design a scanner that can “see” black plastic and/or b) develop a mod kit to retro fit to existing scanners.
I am not an optical engineer but I do work with some so I will see what can be done!

There already are ways to permit detection of black pigmented materials. In fact a new one was publicised in the polymer press last week. So it really boils down to some regulation, which brings these methods into play. But expecting that from a vision-less and technically-deprived government, would be an ask. Why not just leave ‘market forces’ to run their course and have local authorities compete with each other to invent totally incompatible systems. That seems much more logical – NOT.

Plastic becomes a waste when no one wants it. The easy solution is pyrolyse it. I know everyone in the UK seem to knock pyrolysis, but it does work. I know therer are many good systems used in Japan, Germany and many others. In other countries the disposal is undertaken by local government. In the UK disposal contracts are given to profit making companies , they will process any way that gives the best return.

Why are we so scared of “recycling” by incineration? No land fill, no sorting, no on-cost for the recycled plastics. We get energy for generating electricity or for district heating schemes. Properly designed, no risk to the environment.
Exporting the waste is not a defendable solution, but incineration is.

As the majority of incinerator schemes do not/cannot utilise all energy produced by burning, they remain an inefficient method of disposal and they definitely do cause environmental harm. Apart from adding to CO2 emission, other, sometimes highly toxic outcomes also occur – notably dioxins, which in the past have caused damage to livestock and humans downwind of facilities. Prevention of those shortcomings adds to capital and maintenance costs.

So, incineration does not offer the ideal solution that it might appear to do.

What are people thinking of, we should be incentivising manufactures either not to use plastic that cannot be recycled or use materials that can be easily recycled. Not to improve recycling processes for bad and poorly designed materials

I don’t believe the problem lies solely with manufacturers, users, consumers or the re-cyclers. It’s everybody. where I live certain plastics are not recycled, however, in the neighbouring council area some of these plastics can be re-cycles and others can’t. I have also recently found out that black plastic whatever the plastic, is difficult to recycle, something to do with black conveyors and the scanners?!. Plastic is not the enemy but how it is used is.
If local authorities got together so that there was a larger pool of recyclables this would be an improvement.
If manufacturers took more thought in what they made this would help.
If the uses of these plastics (supermarkets, packagers etc.) sought more environmentally sound products where possible this would help.
And if the consumer thought whether or not some item they were buying needed wrapping in plastic when paper could do, again this would help.
On their own nothing much happens, but together little changes make a big difference.

In that ISO14000 applies to many of these processes, and that these manufacturers are often accredited to that standard, clearly the standard or the audits are not fit for purpose. No ISO14000 organisation should be using non recyclable materials.

No plastic to be used for packaging of any kind unless it can be recycled and the manufacturer / importer has a recycling scheme in place to recover the material. Extending the current packaging recovery scheme to cover the latter part would be an achievable goal, I believe the former is possible as it meets or exceeds waste legislation. Of course it might get caught in a restrictive practice challenge…

I’m not sure incentives will work, the PRN scheme is supposed to do this, and it doe snot appear to be working as intended.

I’m not keen on incineration as it’s the end of the material, gone, burning it because we are not bright enough now to reuse it isn’t the best solution.

I couldn’t agree more. We should avoid plastic packaging where possible in the first place. There is no real need to pack peaches, for example in a black ‘feather bed’ with film over them. If the supermarkets got properly organised we could have open selection in paper bags; Le Clerc ,Geant et al. in France can do it and I don’t think that Madame is any less quality-conscious. There is more than enough waste paper to make pulp trays for dry goods.
Where the hurdles lie is, e.g. in a black laminated tray with film and a non-woven ‘nappy’ for half a dozen sausages. and packing free-range fruit & veg in thin plastic bags.
We are being far too slow in getting rid of this stuff at source, meanwhile it’s accumulating by the tens of tons per day.

I agree with Jimmy…Plastic should be taxed at source to drive up the price like they do with tobacco – then the slightly more expensive easily recyclable alternatives would be the cheapest choice. Manufacturers would then produce the ‘cheaper’ packaging like compostable cellulose diacetate film – available since the 1940s. It’s really simple to do, but the UK government are in the pockets of big business interests and always have been.

The only encouragement to recycle that did work is paying a deposit that is refunded when the item is returned: 10p off your next purchase if you return this container. The one problem with 6d refund on glass bottles was that it remained at 6d, rather than increasing with inflation. 50p refund on a beer bottle would have many more bottles returned, or 15p/can.

Pete
The lack of short term benefits to potential developers doesn’t provide sufficient incentive. We should look beyond this and consider not only long term benefits, but the consequences of doing nothing.

How about if all plastic packaging had to be marked with the manufacturers trade mark and they were legally bound to accept it’s return for safe disposal from the local authority’s. This would very quickly incentivise them to 1, look at the true value of the packaging to the product. 2, change to the use of more easily recycled materials.

Back in the early 80’s I was an engineer for Safeway UK and at that time the shops and the staff shop also only issued paper bags (recycled) just like every U.S. produced film you have ever seen for decades showing customers with recycled paper bags. (helps solve two problems, recycles paper and is not plastic) In addition at that time Safeway separated all returns from shops into categories for recycling so why not now and everywhere? Furthermore if we really want to adopt a sound strategy for getting rid of the damaging elements in such plastics only legislation will really make all companies toe the line and necessity being the mother of invention they with all their considerable wealth find alternatives even fund the research and become the heroes of industry. If by imposing legislation such as staged deadlines on curing the problem they feel we will be disadvantaged as a country, well I say balderdash! If we get the process right we can lead not follow.
Stage one – recycle what we can 100% now
Stage two – Ban non recyclable plastics from any food packaging by deadline xxxxx
Stage three – Seek really green alternatives (What happened to old style egg boxes, why the blue blazes have we polystyrene ones in my local stores, eggs don’t need plastic packaging the shell is pretty good by the way).
Water bottles are a big, big, big problem, what is wrong with recyclable waxed card (like fruit juice comes in)?
Until legislation stops them the manufacturers in cohorts with retailers will not stop this madness.
The public must too act and start demanding better packaging, unpack the veg and the whatever and leave the plastic in the supermarket, they will get the message.
And while we are at it get rid of the law that stops us wasting so much food, again I can only speak for Safeway but we distributed all useable, clean returned food to local Almshouses and homeless people. Wasted food should be a taxable issue, the less you waste the less tax you pay against your tonnage per annum.

Thermal depolymerisation will sort it completely. It may not be an efficient process, but it produces oil and carbon black , both of which can be used.
There was a question about this in the commons many many years ago and it was ignored as usual, as for oil to be a by product that does not come from thr oil giants…..
Anything that is based on carbon in its makeup can be put in the pot. All plastics, bones, flesh, wood can be used. It would also make jobs, and the oil produced could power the vehicles collecting the materials for recycling.

Well said Basil. Many of these systems working and full proven in countries like Japan.
Our main problem is “Waste”. Councils just want to farm it out to contract companies whos main concern is profit. So they tend to do a bit of sorting , bale it and send it abroad.

I’m sorry, but why on earth do people (in the UK) buy water in plastic bottles? They pay more per litre for water than they do for petrol! It’s bonkers. If they really have that much cash to waste, let’s put a £1 tax on every bottle, and use the cash raised to fund a better solution to the plastic waste created.
(If they really don’t like the taste of their local tap water, they could fit a micro-fine water filter at home for a moderately small price. It will cost a lot less per litre than buying water in plastic bottles.)

My work is in part related to this. We need a government target like the EU/German 2030 target.
Then we need clarity and focus. Will we abandon PP bottles and ensure that clear bottles are all PET and can therefore easily be in a closed loop? Which flexible packaging will be recyclable by 2030? Tell us now and Industry can shift to it.
The priority is clarity. We want to do the right thing but it’s not yet clear what that is.

Consumers also have a part to play in this. We (the consumers) can take an active role in not purchasing products that are plastic wrapped. Legislation and financial burdens (penalties or additional charges) can work to an extent – look what happened when the plastic bag charge was introduced in England, the volume of waste plastic bags went down dramatically but the bags are still there and what has been done to address the remaining problem of these?
If legislation were such that it made it more financially attractive to move away from plastic-wrapped produce to free-air or paper wrapping, perhaps we might see a change. For some products like meat and fish, what is the option for not having plastic wrapped? One answer is buying fresh (not always available from a supermarket chain) and wrapped in paper.
I am sure that there will be more government hot air, white papers and debate on this before anything comes. However the supermarkets themselves and other involved businesses can move individually or collectively to force the market to act and much faster! Here’s hoping.

I’m a little disappointed to see so many respondents have opted for coercive measures; either over-complicated, onerous and bureaucratic accounting schemes or straight fiscal penalties – taxes or levies – all inevitably leading to cost increases passed on to the consumer. Do I alone see how REGRESSIVE this would be for the poorest members of society?

With the notable exception of Chris Dore’s phone app where are the ENGINEERING solutions? (How about adding a dye to that black plastic so it glows under a UV light and the picking machine can see it?)

Religion has been trying to exhort and government to coerce better behaviour for thousands of years, with little success. Buckminster Fuller believed that design science held the key … “reform the environment and not man; being absolutely confident that if you give man the right environment, he will behave favorably” Get the engineering right and businesses will be COMPETING to collect and recycle the plastic

Before we accept the demands of the mob to ban everything, have a thought as to why the plastic (a very wide category, arguably wider than “engineer”) is there in the first place.
It is usually due to three reasons – (1) It makes processes quicker, cheaper and more hygenic, (2) It helps with the current supermarket supply chain requirements, (3) It increases shelf-life of food stuffs and so helps reduce food waste.
Those who deal with the major supermarkets will know that they don’t put in any additional packaging if there are no associated savings or benefits (to them).
Also, all plastics are recyclable – but many are not financially viable to collect, clean, sort and recycle. That is why we should try and avoid grouping everything under the one title of “plastic”
Incineration with energy recovery may not be perfect or ideal but it may be part of the solution.
Recyclers also need to get their act together – if you can’t auto detect “black plastic trays” then change the detectors or get people to do the job (not the nicest of jobs, so they may have to pay a bit more than minimum wage).

A solution is going to require a combination of approaches: design for re-use or recycling, universal collection systems, improved mechanical sorting and so on, but nothing is like;y to change much unless it becomes worth someone’s while – exhortation won’t cut it. Since collecting and disposing of waste costs local authorities, there should be a graded tax by weight on packaging: nil for re-useable, modest for recyclable, and hefty for non-recyclable, composites etc. Ideally, it should become worthwhile for retailers to standardize packaging and make items automatically identifiable so that it makes sense to take it back and re-use it wherever possible.

By Incentivising manufacturers to produce more recyclable plastics over non-recyclable ones, we are not giving companies that purchase the plastics a choice in the matter. We can’t just punish the use of non-recyclable plastics as this will most likely be financial and only be put through to the consumer anyway.

It is the retailers that want the packaging. This is because well packaged and well presented goods sell better.

Therefore retailers i.e. the Supermarkets should be the target of fines for the percentage of landfill they create as a reflection of their true environmental costs.

Fining Supermarkets and other retailers would be hugely incentivise their supply chain to reduce the volume of packaging.

Currently retailers get to virtue signal their bogus green credentials by selling us a “bag for life” – into which shoppers invariably load a bunch of products that have a lot of unnecessary plastic packaging. Ironically the retailers are specifying the packaging. Someone needs to put a stop to this.